Friday, 24 February 2017

Steve Bannon’s ‘Economic Nationalism’: Far From Original, But a Common Antecedent

In a number of media outlets across
the world, the noises coming out of the ‘Conservative Political Action
Conference’ today are receiving more attention than usual, and this is simply
because of the rise of Donald Trump and, perhaps even more so, the rise of
Steve Bannon. The former Breitbart Editor’s influence upon the new U.S.
administration has garnered more column inches than almost anything else,
particularly due to his supposed
influence on Donald Trump’s so-called ‘Muslim
Ban’, with Bannon making it onto the front of Time Magazine accompanied
with the title ‘the
Great Manipulator’. However, for this very short post, the focus will be on
a statement made by Bannon during today’s proceedings in the CPAC, rather than
the wider political issues stemming from the new administration – a meaningful
analysis is far beyond the scope of this post.

During the proceedings today,
Bannon affirmed that the Trump Administration would deliver ‘an
economic nationalist agenda’. This concept, whilst derided
by certain media outlets as an imagined concept of Bannon’s mind, is quite the
opposite, and is particularly easy to understand. As Bannon himself has intimated,
an economic nationalist agenda is defined by its anti-globalisation ethos, and
aims to counter the ‘governing creed which has put the economic interests of
multinational firms and a wealthy elite above those of ordinary working class
Americans’. This, in purely simple terms, is a damning and arguably accurate
assessment of Globalisation’s effect upon the population, with previous posts discussing
the increase in mortality and general deprivation since the Financial Crisis,
engineered by financial elites at the cost of society. However, whilst the
sentiment of Bannon can be readily disregarding owing to his other views
regarding apocalyptic
battles between faiths, and whatever other anti-humanist sentiment he expresses
(not to mention his past amongst those financial elites), the promotion of ‘economic
nationalism’ – founded upon the negative reaction to the Financial Crisis –
will no doubt carry weight in this volatile era.

However, this idea of promoting ‘economic
nationalism’ is certainly not original, and is usually the precursor to events
that irrefutably change the course of human history. The issue is that economic
nationalism is usually a response to a globalised, or at least far-flung
financial crisis, which then creates tribalism and protectionism – the mentality
that this breeds creates the seeds for protectionism in the form of
aggressiveness. For example, the Panic
of 1907 ushered in a protectionist and inward-looking response as a
response to economic-based downturns, as seen with Theodore Roosevelt’s ‘Square
Deal’ policies which had a focus upon ‘regulating the economy so that no
sector – business, [labour], or consumers – would have an unfair advantage’.
This protectionist sentiment then manifested itself by way of a hesitancy
to commit to the First World War, with the U.S. being in position to make a
telling contribution right at the end of the War in 1918. The same pattern can
be seen before World War II, with the United States responding to an economic
downturn (the Wall St. Crash and subsequent Great Depression) by ushering in an
era of nationalist-based policies in the form of Franklin Roosevelt’s ‘New
Deal’ agenda. Shortly thereafter, the same pattern of tribalism and
protectionism inspiring aggressiveness culminated in the Second World War, with
the U.S.’s hesitancy being witnessed again in the same manner – solely due to
its incorporation of an inward-looking sentiment.

These aspects are discussed above
not to denigrate the United States, far from it, but to make it clear that the
U.S. has a responsibility to think twice before looking inward. The reason for
this is simple; the transition from Global Superpower to protectionist and
inward-looking observer is rarely without consequence, and usually to the
widespread detriment of the global society. Americans, like any other nation,
have the right to decide their own economic fate, but the importance of the
United States’ economic decisions have wide-reaching consequences that often
envelop much more than the economic realm. Rather than showing our disgust at
the venal nature of the financial elite by turning ourselves away from the
world, it is important that we instead develop a culture of severely punishing those who attack
society in such a disrespectful and unforgivable manner. Unfortunately, Bannon’s
words today demonstrate a double-assault – an approach which turns its back on
the world that the country helped to shape, and the certified protection of the
financial elite. Rather than listening to Bannon’s words regarding the ills of
the ‘governing creed’, we must take notice of the actions of the administration, and more precisely their positioning
of venal and centrally-connected financial elites at the heart of the
administration, as discussed
in a previous post. Steve Bannon is not calling for a revolutionary change
of thinking, the like of which a lot of media outlets and his supporters are
quick to discuss, but in actual fact is calling for the preservation of a familiar
pattern in modern human history. The effects of this pattern have been felt
before by humankind, and humankind is braced to see how this next phase of the
same pattern concludes.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Contributions are welcome to this blog. If you would like to contribute regarding any area of financial regulation, then please feel free to email me and submit your blog entry. The content should be concerned with financial regulation, and why it matters, but this is broadly defined. The blog is open to all who are professionally concerned with financial regulation, which may range from an Undergraduate Student interested in writing on the subject, to Professors and industry participants.